HIV+ inmate throws urine at guard, guard gets ‘evaluated for HIV exposure’. Well, it’s more original than the old get-HIV-from-a-bite stories.
Gaetan Dugas was said to be the man responsible for bringing AIDS to the US, but he has now been exonerated. Dugas also died of kidney failure, which is not an AIDS-defining illness but an ARVs one.
Perhaps with a bit more digging they’ll realise that the HIV story is dangerous nonsense.
In the 1980s it was reported that scientists feared that “AIDS affects haemophiliacs differently“. Why would that be? Maybe because despite a similar biomarker the nature of their immunodeficiency is not shared with non-haemophilic HIV-positives.
Note how this woman who was diagnosed with HIV (but presumably not AIDS) assumes that an ex black boyfriend was responsible for her serostatus. It’s easy to blame someone you can’t find when anyone you can is not blameable. As for her mystery illness in 1983, whatever it was obviously has yet to decimate her immune system.
A recent meta-analysis (simply, a study of studies) shows that medicinal contraceptives are not associated with an increased risk of HIV infection, which is bizarre because only barrier contraceptives, such as condoms, decrease the risk of contracting STDs.
However, one preparation, the infamous Depo-Provera, is associated with increased risk of infection. Now, either the other preparations help prevent infection/inflammation as a side effect (not hard to believe as, modestly, the pill appears to increase the immunomodulator, vitamin D) or Depo-Provera is causing people to test HIV+ itself. Or it could be both.
In any case, this is quite embarrassing for the orthodoxy. They will perhaps conclude that Depo-Provera lowers immunity which increases likelihood of HIV infection, but lowered immunity before infection suggests AID(S) before HIV. And if the other solutions raise immunity they solve AID(S) and therefore HIV-positivity is unlikely.
It’s much simpler to think of Depo-Provera as a direct health threat anything else.
One of the mind-boggling conundrums of HIV theory is how a virus thought to be new (or at least newly lethal) managed to spread far to India to create an epidemic when it was not airborne; on top of that, South Asia is largely as sexually conservative as Africa.
Had Dr. Suniti Solomon not tested sex workers, those who went on to be defined as HIV/AIDS patients would’ve been called sufferers of poverty and treated accordingly.
[Read: Hindustan Times]
The Mirror has reported on a Chinese man who tested HIV-positive in 2004 but negative in 2012 following hospitalisation (presumably as a result of the “strong doses of antiretroviral drugs”).
The man, Shoufa, believed he may have been infected from giving blood in 1992, which is a very unlikely scenario. And if he tested positive twelve years later one would have thought he would have untreatable AIDS at that point.
The story seems to have surfaced this year as an investigation is now underway on both of his blood samples.
How many people are ‘fortunate’ to get another HIV test despite suffering from what could be called AIDS?